How does one test their own religion?

nPeace said:

What do you say of an Atheist, born to Atheists; exposed to Atheism all their early years, who becomes religious and believes in a supreme creator - God?

Click to expand...

A nice ad-blurb.
What would you say of an atheist, born to theist parents, a brahmin whose history perhaps goes back to 3000 years (Aupamanyava - Wikipedia), whose ancestors wrote a verse in RigVeda, brought up as a theist, living happily with his theist family, who rejects theism and becomes an atheist?
Don't come up with silly arguments.

Trailblazer said:

Then again, I became a believer because of the evidence that God exists, not because I needed love or to be saved.

Click to expand...

You surely wanted eternal life, your religion says that. Kindly tell us atheist as to what that evidence was.
@Truthseeker9 could chip in with his spiritual evidence.

osgart said:

Is religion falsifiable?

Click to expand...

Only when it makes claim about reality (the world external to the self, nature).

Otherwise, in religion there's no objective test for truth, no reasoned test for truth, as there is in scientific method.

So if you're talking about the supernatural, anything you care to say is as 'true' as anything else you care to say, and as 'true' as anything anyone else cares to say. Thus, if you don't contradict yourself then you're unlikely to have a problem of that kind.

Though history shows that what believers in other things may do you is a different question.

Marcion said:

If you base your spiritual lifestyle mainly on experimentation rather than theory or speculation then you get not faith or religion but tantra-yoga.

Click to expand...

What kind of experiment have you undertaken?

osgart said:

Is religion falsifiable?

Can we apply the scientific method to religion?

Who here approaches religion from the ground up assuming nothing yet entertains existence as a mystery that requires some kind of spirituality and possibly a creative aspect requiring agency?

People invest their own personal identities in their religion, yet do they ever do external objective analysis and research before jumping into their faith?

Does your faith require that only internal sources of knowledge are allowed?

Click to expand...

Book of Mormon: Alma 32:17-43 should be falsifiable

17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a asign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.

18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to abelieve, for he knoweth it.

19 And now, how much amore bcursed is he that cknoweth the dwill of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into etransgression?

20 Now of this thing ye must judge. Behold, I say unto you, that it is on the one hand even as it is on the other; and it shall be unto every man according to his work.

21 And now as I said concerning faith—afaith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye bhope for things which are cnot seen, which are true.

22 And now, behold, I say unto you, and I would that ye should remember, that God is amerciful unto all who believe on his name; therefore he desireth, in the first place, that ye should believe, yea, even on his word.

23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, anot only men but women also. Now this is not all; little bchildren do have words given unto them many times, which cconfound the wise and the learned.

24 And now, my beloved brethren, as ye have desired to know of me what ye shall do because ye are afflicted and cast out—now I do not desire that ye should suppose that I mean to judge you only according to that which is true—

25 For I do not mean that ye all of you have been compelled to humble yourselves; for I verily believe that there are some among you who awould humble themselves, let them be in whatsoever circumstances they might.

26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than adesire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a aseed. Now, if ye give place, that a bseed may be planted in your cheart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your dunbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to eenlighten my funderstanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own alikeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your aknowledge bperfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your cfaith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your dmind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is alight; and whatsoever is light, is bgood, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye aneglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your aground is bbarren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the atree of life.

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with apatience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree bspringing up unto everlasting life.

42 And because of your adiligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the bfruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall areap the brewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth cfruit unto you.

osgart said:

Is religion falsifiable?

Can we apply the scientific method to religion?

Who here approaches religion from the ground up assuming nothing yet entertains existence as a mystery that requires some kind of spirituality and possibly a creative aspect requiring agency?

People invest their own personal identities in their religion, yet do they ever do external objective analysis and research before jumping into their faith?

Does your faith require that only internal sources of knowledge are allowed?

Click to expand...

Like this?
Harvard researchers study how mindfulness may change the brain in depressed patients

Or this?
Google Scholar

Valjean said:

Galileo falsified the church's claim that the Earth was stationary. It didn't go well for him, and the church rejected his research.

Conclusion: The church is not interested in facts, just doctrine. The church is threatened by facts, and will deny or actively suppress them.
Ergo: applying the scientific method to religion can be both futile and hazardous.

Click to expand...

That was quite a long time ago. Do you think it's the reason some scientists, or rather some atheists with a scientific background, have considerable antipathy to religion? Because they still haven't got over Galileo?

I think it might be time to move on. The Spanish Inquisition packed it's bags long ago.

Trailblazer said:

No, the Baha'i Faith does not have a standard set of evidence it provides to justify belief, ..

Click to expand...

Just a few posts ago you said you have evidence and now you say that 'No, the Baha'i Faith does not have a standard set of evidence it provides to justify belief,'. That is very funny.

Bahaollah said that he was a messenger of Allah and you believe that. Actually he said more than that. He said he was a mirror image of Allah. That is what Bahais mean by the word 'manifestation'.

Then Bahaollah says that one should look at the life of one who claims to be a messenger or manifestation of Allah (mirror image of God). What does another person know about the life of a person.

Yes, Bahaollah was not accused or convicted of any crime. It does not mean that he may not have indulged in bad deeds. For my acquiantances, I am a nice law-abiding person, but I have done a few bad things in my younger days. I do not go about saying that I am an exemplary person. Then he says one should look at the message. All nice and loving (except for women and LGBTQ).

But there have been many other people who were also not accused or convicted of any crime and their message was similarly nice and loving. People like Gandhi or Matin Luther King. Why should they too not considered messengers or manifestations of Allah?

osgart said:

Is religion falsifiable?

Can we apply the scientific method to religion?

Who here approaches religion from the ground up assuming nothing yet entertains existence as a mystery that requires some kind of spirituality and possibly a creative aspect requiring agency?

People invest their own personal identities in their religion, yet do they ever do external objective analysis and research before jumping into their faith?

Does your faith require that only internal sources of knowledge are allowed?

Click to expand...

Religion and theology from the perspective you are taking in this post is a philosophical discussion. So the scientific method cannot be applied to it. So the answer is, no, religious matters cannot be falsified.

To your second question, yes, people do extensive, external, objective analysis and research. They have done for a long long time, and they are still doing. And that is about religion, theology, God, etc.

The last question is personal, and the answer is "no, it does not require such".

Aupmanyav said:

Just a few posts ago you said you have evidence and now you say that 'No, the Baha'i Faith does not have a standard set of evidence it provides to justify belief,'

Click to expand...

Its hypocritical to not have a "standard set of evidence" and then require it from someone else. You have no standards but your claim "because others say so", but you ask this from others?

Have a "standard" first Aupmanyav.

osgart said:

Can we apply the scientific method to religion?

Click to expand...

Of course we can as the religious/mythical explanation of the creation came before the historic and present cosmological science.

It all depend on describing the ancient extension of the creation as concerning the Milky Way at the largest and the described pre-conditions and factual creation of the Milky Way. (That is: Our ancestors did NOT speak of a creation of everything in the observable Universe).

These numerous ancient cultural Stories of Creation are in several details very much like the modern explanation of the Solar System formation:

Before the beginning of this (MW) formation, there were nothing formed but "cosmic rivers" were set in a swirling motion with concentrated the contents in these "rivers" into a center which lightened ("let there be Light") up and created everything in the Milky Way, including the Solar System.

This ancient knowledge of the principles of formation is, as said, much like the modern explanation of the Solar System, except from the important fact, that the ancient telling clearly include the Solar System to have been created in connection with the Milky Way formation. Which is logical as the Solar System orbits the galactic center.

Another important fact is that our ancestors have the creation to be CYCLICAL and ETERNAL in nature. That is: In the Universe, everything undergoes eternal changes between a creation form "chaos" to order, followed by a dissolution to "chaos" and again followed by a re-creation from "chaos". (No linear Big Bang idea here)

IMO can the ancient Stories of Creation even correct ideas in the modern astrophysics and cosmology - mostly because of the ancient cyclical perception and by the fact that our ancestors had it all to be closely connected. They even didn´t differ between physical and metaphysical matters as most scholarly educated scientists do.

Here is a fine method to test your own religion:

Relevant links:
Milky Way (mythology) - Wikipedia
Creation myth - Wikipedia
List of creation myths - Wikipedia
Comparative mythology - Wikipedia
Comparative religion - Wikipedia

I subject my faith to one simple test; does it work, for me?

So far it always has.

osgart said:

Is religion falsifiable?

Click to expand...

Good question

In theory, I would say no, I guess. For the same reason as it can't be confirmed either

But then again, I think it depends a lot on what criteria or rules you work with when you ask such question.

Can we apply the scientific method to religion?

The scientific method works with the natural world, which is the keyword here. So, if that is your criteria, surely religion can be falsified based on set rules, because something need to be observed, measured or capable of being worked with, in order to apply the method. Meaning you do not just set out to examine something random without any reason to do so. Like a scientist suddenly wanting to examine whether or not some special energy they just invented exist or not.

So something natural whether its something directly observed or merely a theory need to give a reason for why you would want to study something in the first place.

The reason, I would lean towards saying that religion is not falsifiable is because it deals with the supernatural, where everything goes, there are not really any rules in regards to what these claims are or what these beings or Gods can do. Which makes at least these parts untestable. And given that they are supernatural they can do whatever they want, so in theory they could manipulate whatever results the scientists got. And given that we have no evidence for something supernatural existing and doesn't have a method for testing it, there is not really any way to verify it and therefore it is not falsifiable.

What science does is basically giving us a reason why we ought to believe something as being more likely to be true rather than not, exactly because it can be demonstrated using a method.

So for me at least, the question of whether religions can be falsified or not is of little importance, but rather it is much more important asking myself, why I ought to believe something for which there are no reason to believe in, in the first place?

osgart said:

Is religion falsifiable?

Can we apply the scientific method to religion?

Who here approaches religion from the ground up assuming nothing yet entertains existence as a mystery that requires some kind of spirituality and possibly a creative aspect requiring agency?

People invest their own personal identities in their religion, yet do they ever do external objective analysis and research before jumping into their faith?

Does your faith require that only internal sources of knowledge are allowed?

Click to expand...

Yes, you live it. Scientific tests concern what I would call 'corporate proofs' and
religion involves the 'personal proofs.'

danieldemol said:

What kind of experiment have you undertaken?

Click to expand...

I have experimented with diet e.g. with or without onions/garlic/leeks/mushrooms/eggs and how that affects my meditation.
I have experimented with different ways of getting into the states of dharana (concentration) and dhyana (absorption).
And I have experimented with the effect of doing more selfless social service on my meditation.
Also with fasting twice a month (no food, no drink from sunrise till the next day) or doing so four times a month and with eating less per meal and with or without dairy.
And with the effect of rising before sunrise or rising after sunrise on the quality of my morning meditation.
Also the effect of taking cold baths instead of using warm water.

There are so many things I have tried out over the years when I come to think of it.

sayak83 said:

Like this?
Harvard researchers study how mindfulness may change the brain in depressed patients

Or this?
Google Scholar

Click to expand...

Neither, just the validity or the truth value of one's own religion!

Valjean said:

Galileo falsified the church's claim that the Earth was stationary. It didn't go well for him, and the church rejected his research.

Conclusion: The church is not interested in facts, just doctrine. The church is threatened by facts, and will deny or actively suppress them.
Ergo: applying the scientific method to religion can be both futile and hazardous.

Click to expand...

That's not what happened, and the church position was supported by majority of astronomers at that time.

The church changing their position was not the problem imagined, and it was even acknowledged that they would change their position given sufficient evidence.

The problem was Galileo, while correct, had not yet been able to demonstrate his position beyond doubt either to the church or to other astronomers so he got annoyed and called the Pope a simpleton which ended badly.

osgart said:

Is religion falsifiable?

Can we apply the scientific method to religion?

Who here approaches religion from the ground up assuming nothing yet entertains existence as a mystery that requires some kind of spirituality and possibly a creative aspect requiring agency?

People invest their own personal identities in their religion, yet do they ever do external objective analysis and research before jumping into their faith?

Does your faith require that only internal sources of knowledge are allowed?

Click to expand...

AS CHRIST WILL TELL YOU IN HIS 2ND COMING: IF ONE CONTRADICTS ONE'S OWN RELIGION, LIKELY THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE LORD:

It's like the movie Roots, where the White master was too busy reading the scriptures to stop the beating of Kunta Kinte because he refused to say his name was Toby.

DOES YOUR PREACHER SAY OR DO:

1. Pray to Jesus to kill the enemy--remember: "thou shalt not kill" (don't just read the bible.....understand it.....live it....use compassion....care about all of God's children).

2. Vote with Jesus for our candidate, so he can cut taxes for the rich, then cut taxes for the rich again, and again, and again, and again (don't worry, they can afford to pay you more....but what they really did with the money was move factories (state of the art processing plants) overseas to take advantage of cheap foreign labor, and trained foreigners to take away your jobs in Detroit and Ohio where we used to manufacture things). So, America makes nothing, Detroit is a ghost town, people are unemployed, there is a huge trade imbalance, there is a huge national debt passed to our kids and grand kids. (Worship mammon over God, then fail to get mammon).

3. Beat up stewardesses on planes because they "might" wrinkle our robe, then blame them for attacking a man of the cloth (Robert Schuller). (Excessive pride, lying, and violence)

4. We'll rapture to heaven, leaving behind a toxic sewer where once God's miraculous green natural environment once thrived. (Satan destroys God's creations).

5. "I talked to God and God told me that a hurricane will not strike Florida while I am governor (Jeb Bush)." Then, when a hurricane hits, it is "God's way of killing off the trailer trash" (who live in structures far less sturdy than the mansions of millionaires. (We are all God's children. The bible warned us not to listen to false prophets. Compassion in all things).

6. Declare war on Afghanistan, Iraq, and try to implicate Niger with phony yellow cake Uranium story to take Niger too. Wilson had refused to tell lies about Niger and start a war, so W. Bush and Cheney outed his CIA wife, Valery Plame. The Taliban were religious and political leaders of Afghanistan who had capture Bin Laden and his top men merely 9 days after the 911 attack, offered to turn them over if the US could prove they were linked to terrorism...thus, the Taliban were US allies. Iraq had no WMD and no connection with terrorism. W. Bush said that Iraq was part of an Axis of Evil with North Korea and Iran. W. Bush called the sub-leaders of Iraq "doctor death" etc. ("thou shalt not kill," "thou shalt not bear false witness").

7. Ignore the homeless and sick. Vote against universal healthcare. Imagine the world if COVID shots were not given to everyone. (Jesus fed and cured).

8 . Humans pretend to represent (or be) God. "fighting the Axis of Evil" or "fighting evil" then kill a million innocent Iraqis, some of whom are women and children, then lie about it (so people aren't put off by the horrors of war). Rumsfeld said that the carpet bombs dropped next to large cities killed no civilians (1/2 mile diameter craters). (God said: "I am God, and there will be no other.")

ANSWER: The world is messed up because the religion is fine, but badly implemented. The Religious Right mixed religion and politics and got the leaders they demanded.

Valjean said:

We can apply the scientific method to specific claims of religion.

When religion ventures outside its proper sphere of values, and starts making declarations of fact, it's invaded science's turf, and should tread carefully. It's on thin ice.

Click to expand...

DNA is accepted by courts as evidence, and DNA proves evolution. Yet, some theists claim that creationism is proven. We each have our own standards of belief. We should try to understand the way others think, and try to let them understand us.

It's hard to convince some theists that we need to stop Global Warming while they insist that they will soon be raptured to heaven, leaving behind a toxic waste dump where God's miraculous nature once stood. I plan to grab them by the ankles and pull them down until they fix this mess.

Discussion is dangerous....it leads to wisdom.

RestlessSoul said:

That was quite a long time ago. Do you think it's the reason some scientists, or rather some atheists with a scientific background, have considerable antipathy to religion? Because they still haven't got over Galileo?

I think it might be time to move on. The Spanish Inquisition packed it's bags long ago.

Click to expand...

They haven't got over their imaginary version of the Galileo affair as they never bothered to find out what actually happened.

The idea that the Church was implacably hostile to science is a foundational myth for many Secular Humanist types.

That this is far more myth than historical reality is never something they care to acknowledge for the same reason many religious folk are often reticent to acknowledge their mythical beliefs.

osgart said:

Is religion falsifiable?

Can we apply the scientific method to religion?

Who here approaches religion from the ground up assuming nothing yet entertains existence as a mystery that requires some kind of spirituality and possibly a creative aspect requiring agency?

People invest their own personal identities in their religion, yet do they ever do external objective analysis and research before jumping into their faith?

Does your faith require that only internal sources of knowledge are allowed?

Click to expand...

I think one important consideration that needs to be factored in, is that most people are not first exposed to religion as fully educated, grown adults. Most are infused with religion and religious practice from the time they are very young. When belief and faith become tightly integrated into self-identity, family and community identity, as well as the psychological coping mechanisms that center around belief and religious life, it becomes quite difficult to separate ones self from all that and become a distant, outside observer of their religion.